Commonwealth v. Cannon

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a claim that trial court failed to consider the defendant’s rehabilitative needs, age, and educational background did not present a substantial question
• concluding that a claim that trial court failed to consider the defendant’s rehabilitative needs, age, and educational background did not present a substantial question
• concluding that a claim that trial court failed to consider the defendant’s rehabilitative needs, age, and educational background did not present a substantial question
• concluding that a claim that trial court failed to consider the defendant’s rehabilitative needs, age, and educational background did not present a substantial question
• concluding that the defendant failed to present a substantial question when he claimed that trial court had failed to consider his rehabilitative needs, age, and educational background
• reiterating that “when the trial court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review” and stating that a vague Rule 1925(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).